Rep. Mary Bono Freaks Out Both About 'Gov't Takeover' AND 'Gov't Handover' Of The Internet

from the hypocrite-much? dept

On Friday afternoon, we wrote about the basic non-story about how NTIA (a part of the Commerce Department) will be relinquishing what little "control" it had over ICANN's IANA function. The US government already had little to no actual say over anything that ICANN was doing. The organization has been almost entirely independent from the beginning, and this move really just helps to clarify things, while actually taking some pressure off of ICANN so that other countries can't whine and complain (incorrectly) that the internet is "under US control."

Still, with headlines everywhere screaming about how the US is "giving up control" over the internet, you had to know that it was going to become some sort of political issue. And, indeed, a bunch of politicians are up in arms about this, with the most vocal (by far) critic of this move being Rep. Mary Bono, who tweeted angrily on Friday about how we should all be concerned about this and how we need to "keep the internet!"

Of course, since some of us have memories that go back more than a month or so, it's not that difficult to remember Rep. Mary Bono was also one of the most vehement politicians against net neutrality. In fact, just three years ago, in launching an attack on net neutrality, this very same Rep. Mary Bono was screaming about stopping the "government takeover of the internet." Sadly, that tweet is now deleted (gee... wonder why?).

Still, we're curious about all of this, and are hoping that Rep. Bono can answer this basic question. If we needed to "stop the government takeover of the internet" a few years ago... and yet, today, it's an incredibly important job for the government to "keep the internet," what, exactly, is Rep. Bono's position on US government control over the internet? Or is it just whatever bogus talking point she can use to fire up constituents into believing the government is about to do something bad?

Filed Under: government takeover, iana, internet, internet governance, mary bono, net neutrality, ntia
Companies: icann

US Relinquishing What Tiny Control It Had Of The Internet... If UN Isn't Allowed To Take Over

from the not-that-big-a-deal dept

This was rumored for a while, but the Commerce Department has now said that it will be "relinquishing" its "control" over ICANN's IANA, which administers the basic structure of the internet domain system. You can read the details here. Of course, the US government's "control" over ICANN/IANA has always been a lot more on paper than in reality. From the beginning, while the Commerce Department technically had oversight concerning ICANN, it had always been careful to live up to its promise that ICANN was to be independent of the US government. So, while some are making a big deal over this, it's unclear if it will really matter that much.

The big fear over the past few years was that certain foreign interests -- lead by authoritarian regimes in China and Russia (with long track records of censoring the internet and stifling dissent) -- would take control of the internet away from ICANN via the ITU, an organization that's a part of the UN. That was extremely problematic on a number of levels, given in part that the ITU process is entirely controlled by country governments without input from other stakeholders, such as technologists. ICANN is far from perfect (very, very, very, very, very far from perfect), but the ITU would be significantly worse.

However, from what's being said, it appears that the Commerce Department's plan is conditional on the UN/ITU not getting control, and for internet governance to remain a multi-stakeholder process, rather than one solely controlled by governments.

U.S. officials set strict conditions and an indeterminate timeline for the transition from federal government authority, saying that a new oversight body must be created and win the trust of crucial stakeholders around the world, said Lawrence Strickling, a top Commerce Department official. The announcement essentially ruled out the possibility that the United Nations would take over the U.S. role, something many nations have advocated and U.S. officials have long opposed.

That's a good thing. From what's being said, it sounds like the Commerce Department would like ICANN to continue more or less the way it has been running, just without the official claim to being overseen by the Commerce Department. Could that lead to troubles down the road? Sure. But, frankly, the US more or less forced itself into this position with its idiotic decision to let the NSA spy on everything. Before that, plenty of other countries were happy with de facto US "control" over the internet. But once it became clear just how deep the NSA's claws were within the internet, even former allies began to demand changes.

While the ICANN model can be improved upon (greatly), it can also be much, much worse. So where this goes will need to be watched closely. But, on a first pass, simply taking the Commerce Department's name off of things should have little direct impact for the time being. And, of course, it's worth remembering, that before ICANN, the internet was more or less governed (benevolently) by this guy.

Filed Under: commerce department, iana, internet governance, itu
Companies: icann

Sen. Rockefeller Wants ICANN To Block '.Sucks' TLDs

from the a-sanitized-internet...-for-the-corporations dept

Another legislator has weighed in on governing the internet. This time, it's not so much for "the children" as it is for the poor, oppressed corporations of the world.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat, strongly suggested that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, better known as ICANN, the body in charge of approving Web site domain names, should reject a proposal to allow ‘sucks’ as a new generic top level domain, referred to as gTLD.

In a letter to the organization, Rockefeller, who is chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, argued that the .sucks domain name could be abused by parties “to unfairly defame individuals, non-profit organizations and businesses.”

First off, simply saying a person, NPO or business "sucks" isn't defamation. The content of those sites may meet that bar, but a domain name utilizing .sucks isn't defamatory in and of itself. And it's routinely been found that sites such as walmartsucks, etc. are covered under the First Amendment.

But Rockefeller goes even further than just assuming .sucks domains will be filled with defamatory content. He also assumes that anyone/anything confronted with a .sucks site will be forced to spend money fighting to keep their reputations from sliding into the internet toilet.

“I view it as little more than a predatory shakedown scheme,” Rockefeller said. “The business model behind this gTLD seems to be the following: force large corporations, small businesses, non-profits and even individuals to pay ongoing fees to prevent seeing the phrase ‘sucks’ appended to their names on the Internet.”

What Rockefeller fails to consider is that these entities could also do nothing. Fighting a "sucks" site rarely makes the situation better. But this is the way those to seek to govern the internet view things: as worst case scenarios played out against a Wild West background. There's no room for subtlety in the debate and there's no "fostering" of "conversations," as those marketing these domains state in their defense.

And every new gTLD can be viewed as a "shakedown scheme." Businesses rush to secure (or to block off) new TLDs in order to prevent domain squatters, competitors and critics from snatching them up. Singling out ".sucks" as nothing more than a predatory scheme ignores the reality -- a new gTLD will always be a combination gold rush/shakedown.

Rockefeller points to one registration site, Vox Populi Registry, which is marketing .sucks domain names as "defensive" purchases -- with a starting price of $2,500 which will escalate to $25,000 once the "sunrise period" hits. From this, he extrapolates a "shakedown scheme" across all registration entities, even as others have denied viewing this gTLD as an easy way to hoover up defensive corporate funds.

A spokesman for the other firm, Donuts Inc., said the company “carefully considered the utility of each gTLD for which we applied.”

He also defended Donuts’ business model which he said “is focused on providing Internet users around the world with real choice in how they craft their online identities. We are not soliciting, and have no plans to solicit, ‘defensive registrations.’”

So, there are those who facilitate an open internet, one that will certainly bring out the worst in some people. And there are those who assume only the worst kind of people exist and try to route the internet around them. But Rockefeller, like many other legislators who set their sights on making the web "safe," fails to realize that it's the internet itself that does the "routing," and it views censorship as nothing more than damage to be avoided.

(Rockefeller may be more concerned than most, considering some of his biggest donors -- AT&T, Time Warner and Verizon -- are often referred to in phrases that end with "sucks.")

Rockefeller envisions an internet where corporations and individuals seldom hear discouraging words, but that notion is entirely unrealistic. If he gets his way, the internet (as it were) will simply find another outlet for its frustrations with corporations, non-profit organizations and aggravating people -- and it will still be composed (nearly) entirely of protected speech that "forces" these entities to play defense. And there won't be a thing he can do about it.

Filed Under: domains, jay rockefeller, shakedowns, sucks sites, tlds, top level domains
Companies: icann

Pharmacy Group Lies To Registrars: If We Complain About A Site, It Must Be Taken Down No Questions Asked

from the that's-not-how-it-works dept

This is incredible. Just yesterday we wrote about how EasyDNS won its arbitration case, saying that a registrar cannot takedown and block the transfer of a domain name just on the say so of law enforcement or anyone else not carrying a court order. And, the very next day, EasyDNS is reporting on an absurd letter it has received from the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, which argues exactly the opposite of what the arbitration panel told EasyDNS.

Incredibly, it says that if it complains about a domain, the registrar must take it down:

"Upon receipt of an abuse notification, some Registrars claim that a court order is required or that they are not violating the laws of the Registrar’s country. Both assertions are wrong."

Except, as EasyDNS points out, the arbitration ruling says that it's the NABP that's wrong, and that a court order is required. Similarly, the NABP claims that registrars must freeze the domains, even without a court order.

You should not allow domain names engaged in the illegal sale or distribution to transfer to another Registrar: the question of legality does not relate to where the Registrar is located, but rather to the activity of the Web site.

But, again, the arbitration ruling, which merely read from ICANN's own rules, says the exact opposite -- noting that you clearly need a court order

The NABP also tries the same direct misreading of ICANN's rules that Public Domain Registry used, to pretend that "fraud" is a reason to deny transfer, but as the arbitration ruling found, that claim is simply incorrect. The "fraud" referenced in the rules is only fraud concerning transfers not fraud in terms of what the website was used for.

There's much more in the letter as well. There is some history here. The NABP is basically an organization designed to artificially inflate the price of drugs in the US, cynically using highly questionable claims to pretend that they're focused on "public safety." For years, the NABP has worked hard to keep legitimate but cheaper versions of drugs outside the US, so that US pharmacies (and the drug companies they work with) can charge increasingly insane prices for drugs. Because they can use the specter of "fake drugs killing people!" they're able to do all sorts of nasty attacks on foreign pharmacies that are selling perfectly legitimate drugs to willing buyers, by claiming that they put people's lives at risk.

And, now, it appears they're going even further in trying to basically create a "SOPA-like" setup, whereby registrars are required to pull down any domain based solely on NABP's say so without any judicial review at all. The fact that this is happening at the same time that City of London Police are doing the same exact thing (at the urging of the legacy music/movie industries) isn't an accident. While the supporters of SOPA insist that there's no new legislation coming, they're all trying to do an end run around all of it, creating something that's even more extreme than SOPA by getting registrars to simply kill sites they don't like based on nothing but a complaint.

EasyDNS's Mark Jeftovic says it all in his blog post about it, noting that this is why they fought back against COICA/SOPA/PIPA:

It really is getting creepy out there.

We now know that we live in a total surveillance society, governments are printing money, going broke, manufacturing consent and lying about nearly everything; while quasi-governmental agencies all over the world are now asserting they have the authority to overturn legal process and basically dictate everybody else's business.

This script is playing out almost verbatim what we wrote only three years ago in "First They Came For The File Sharing Domains".

Who will be the next batch of clowns who tell us they can use liberally interpreted language in a couple of agreements that they aren't even party to to compel us to takedown your website? Let's start a betting pool.

This is why pushing back and standing up for internet freedom is so important. The attempts to control, to censor, to block and to silence are only increasing. The legacy players who can't stand competition or innovation are looking for any way to hold back the future, and that means attacking the public's ability to make use of the internet and to speak freely.

Filed Under: censorship, domains, mark jeftovic, registrars, takedowns
Companies: easydns, icann, nabp

Key Internet Institutions Ditch US Leadership; Brazil To Host Global Summit To Draw Up New Governance Model

from the payback-time dept

Here's a hugely important story that brings together three major threads. First, the continuing wrangling over the form that Internet governance should take. Second, the fact that NSA's massive surveillance operations around the world have included economic espionage. And third, Brazil's increasingly angry reaction to that spying. As a post from the Internet Governance Project explains:

the Directors of all the major Internet organizations -- ICANN, the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Architecture Board, the World Wide Web Consortium, the Internet Society, all five of the regional Internet address registries -- turned their back on the US government. With striking unanimity, the organizations that actually develop and administer Internet standards and resources initiated a break with 3 decades of U.S. dominance of Internet governance.

Those directors have issued what they call the "Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation," which includes the following:

They called for accelerating the globalization of and functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing.

That's a fairly clear call for the US to relinquish its dominant role. Another section hints at why this is happening now:

They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring and surveillance.

But this isn't just some vague but meaningless statement of annoyance: those involved have already started working on ways to replace current structures, as this story on the news24.com site reports:

Brazil, which has slammed massive US electronic spying on its territory, said on Wednesday it would host a global summit on internet governance in April.

President Dilma Rousseff made the announcement after conferring in Brasilia with Fadi Chehade, chief executive of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann).

"We have decided that Brazil will host in April 2014 an international summit of governments, industry, civil society and academia" to discuss Brazil's suggestions for upgrading Internet security, Rousseff said on Twitter.

Once again, we see the NSA's reckless disregard for the consequences of its global surveillance -- far beyond what could be regarded as reasonable or proportionate -- is now having massive adverse effects on America's standing and influence in the world. The Internet Governance Project post puts it well:

Make no mistake about it: this is important. It is the latest, and one of the most significant manifestations of the fallout from the Snowden revelations about NSA spying on the global Internet. It's one thing when the government of Brazil, a longtime antagonist regarding the US role in Internet governance, gets indignant and makes threats because of the revelations. And of course, the gloating of representatives of the International Telecommunication Union could be expected. But this is different. Brazil's state is now allied with the spokespersons for all of the organically evolved Internet institutions, the representatives of the very "multi-stakeholder model" the US purports to defend. You know you've made a big mistake, a life-changing mistake, when even your own children abandon you en masse.

And before anyone tries to blame this latest development on Snowden, let's be clear that the problem is not that this activity has been revealed, but that the NSA was doing it in the first place.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: brazil, internet governance, nsa, nsa surveillance
Companies: icann, ietf, internet society, w3c

The Registrars Who Shut Down Websites After Demands From City Of London Police Likely Violated ICANN Policy

from the not-how-it-works dept

We recently wrote about the City of London Police ordering various registrars to shut down a list of websites based on the City of London Police themselves deciding they must be illegal. That is, without a court order or any judicial oversight, the police just decided the sites were illegal and needed to be taken offline. On top of that, the police force's new "IP Crime Unit" threatened registrars that if they didn't obey, then they might lose their accreditation from ICANN. This was based on a total misreading of both copyright law and ICANN's rules.

In fact, Mark Jeftovic, the head of EasyDNS, the one registrar that appears to have both refused the City of London Police's demand and also spoken out publicly about this terrible attack on due process, is now noting that all of the other registrars who complied with the orders are almost certainly in violation of ICANN's policies because they obeyed the police. The main issue is that part of the demand from the police was that the registrar not only redirect the site to a propaganda page, but that it also "freeze the whois record" to block any further changes.

But, as Jeftovic points out, ICANN has very specific rules about these things, and because some random police force demands it is not an approved reason to do such a thing:

Since there were no charges against any of the domains and no court orders, it may be at the registrars' discretion to play ball with these ridiculous demands. However – what they clearly cannot do now, is prevent any of those domain holders from simply transferring out their names to more clueful, less wimpy registrars.

If any of those registrars denied the ability to do that, then they would be in clear violation of the ICANN Inter-Registrars Transfer Policy.

Section 3, Obligations of The  Registrar of Record clearly spells out the reasons why a registrar may deny a transfer-out request, and they are limited specifically to cases of fraud (the domain was paid for fraudulently), a UDRP proceeding or, hey, get this one "Court order by a court of competent jurisdiction", as well as some administrative reasons (like the domain was registered less than 60 days ago).

What is conspicuously absent from the list of reasons why a registrar that actually complied with this lunacy can now deny a transfer-out request is "because some guy sent you an email telling you to lock it down".

Jeftovic further notes that the registrars who folded upon receiving the police threat have now opened themselves up to significant liability problems, because the sites that got taken down can respond via the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (TDRP), which could mean that the registrars will have to pay "substantial" fees for blocking the transfer without a valid basis.

It certainly would be interesting to see the full list of sites the City of London Police decided to censor, as well as who the various registrars are, and how they reacted. While such a list doesn't appear to be out yet, I imagine it's only a matter of time.

Filed Under: city of london police, copyright, freezing, registrars, whois
Companies: easydns, icann

Stopping Big Pharma From Using New .pharmacy Domain To Block Legal Pharmacies They Don't Like

from the speak-up dept

A few months ago, we wrote about how Big Pharma -- a collection of the largest pharmaceutical companies -- has been trying to get the .pharmacy generic top level domain from ICANN. The whole idea, of course, is actually to use it to block legitimate pharmacies that offer reimportation of drugs at cheaper prices. As you hopefully know, pharmaceuticals jack up the prices for Americans, and you can often get the exact same drugs from Canadian pharmacies. In fact, some US politicians -- including President Obama -- have supported this "reimportation" or "parallel importation" as a way to reduce the costs of healthcare.

But Big Pharma loves to conflate legitimate Canadian pharmacies with "rogue pharmacies" that sell either counterfeit drugs or just fake drugs. Of course, some studies have shown that much of the product from "rogue pharmacies" is actually genuine (killing off your customers isn't good business...), but the legal Canadian pharmacies still have a much higher level of legitimacy. And the pharmaceutical companies hate that, because they like their monopoly pricing.

RxRights, an organization that represents many of those Canadian pharmacies who are helping Americans get more affordable medicines so they can, you know, stay alive, has put together a petition asking ICANN not to support Big Pharma's digital landgrab.

Due to the applicant's history of actions positions, we have little doubt that, if approved, NABP will prevent safe, regulated and licensed Canadian and other international online pharmacies from registering domains in the .pharmacy gTLD. Such an action would block trusted distance care providers from utilizing the gTLD that global consumers will come to regard as a mark of authenticity for safe medication.

Large pharmaceutical companies and NABP---member U.S. pharmacies oppose personal importation because Americans can obtain identical, legitimate, but lower cost prescription medications through licensed online pharmacies domiciled outside the U.S. This opposition is significant in light of the fact that U.S. pharmaceutical companies have largely funded NABP's application for .pharmacy. Further, NABP uses funding from pharmaceutical companies and U.S. pharmacies for its programs and activities. We believe that it is an inherent conflict of interest. Through its .pharmacy application, NABP seeks to control access to affordable medication not just for Americans but for all global consumers with an Internet connection.

Large pharmaceutical firms seek to keep drug prices high for as long as possible through a combination of dubious and aggressive tactics, including regional differential pricing arrangements and payments to prevent the availability of lower cost generics. Their backing of the .pharmacy application seeks to extend these inflated pricing measures to the Internet retail sector.

The .pharmacy gTLD must be operated in a manner that ensures that this unique global Internet resource provides benefits to all consumers seeking access to safe and affordable medicines no matter where they reside. ICANN must act in the global public interest by ensuring that NABP cannot endanger hundreds of thousands of lives through control of .pharmacy. A fully inclusive advisory board that includes legitimate online pharmacies and consumer groups from around the world should set the registration policies for .pharmacy.

The problem of drug affordability is a global issue. Within the U.S., unique among wealthy nations, it is dire--the Commonwealth Fund reports that 50 million Americans chose not to fill a prescription last year because of high U.S. costs. If NABP's .pharmacy application is approved, access to affordable medicine will be further restricted through the denial of domain registrations to licensed and regulated providers of lower cost prescription drugs, compounding this public health crisis.

Please don't let that happen.

Filed Under: big pharma, drugs, icann, parallel importation, pharmaceuticals, reimportation, rxrights, top level domains
Companies: icann, nabp

Big Pharma Firms Seeking .pharmacy Domain To Crowd Out Legitimate Foreign Pharmacies

from the killing-the-grey-market dept

For years, we've noted that the big drug companies like to conflate legitimate foreign pharmacies (often based in Canada) that sell back into the US (the so-called "reimportation" or "parallel import" market) at cheaper prices with out and out bogus or counterfeit online pharmacies. The drug companies like nothing better than when people lump the two very different beasts together and label them all as "counterfeit." Of course, for many Americans, relying on cheaper legit drugs from Canada is the only way they can survive, and there have been efforts made at times by US politicians -- including President Obama -- to support more parallel importation to ease the high cost of drugs in the US.

However, there's an interesting tidbit coming out in the ongoing battles over new top level domains. It appears that the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy is seeking a .pharmacy domain, which (obviously) they would then only bestow upon pharmacies that they like. That could be a big issue, because it's likely they wouldn't allow that for certain Canadian pharmacies and other foreign legitimate pharmacies that may offer cheaper drugs. Both Demand Progress and Public Citizen recently filed comments with ICANN about why NABP should not be allowed to control .pharmacy.

From Public Citizen's filing:

Granting the .pharmacy domain to NABP would confer legitimacy on pharmacies sanctioned by NABP, to the detriment of those that are not.

NABP has proposed an unfair standard that would bar online pharmacies that serve US consumers but are located outside of the United States from using the domain (see NABP’s application at Section 18(a) IV*). This would exclude many licensed pharmacies which offer American consumers low-cost medicines of quality.

Whether a pharmacy is located in the United States does not determine whether a pharmacy is licensed and provides medicines of quality.

Consumer access to medicines depends in significant part on price and competition. It would be inappropriate to allow NABP to control such an important gTLD while it maintains exclusionary plans for the domain, which work against the consumer interest in a robust market of quality affordable pharmaceuticals.

And, from Demand Progress's filing:

The pharmaceutical industry has prioritized trying to shut down legitimate pharmacies selling safe Canadian drugs to U.S. consumers (as currently allowed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration). But their tactics to achieve these anti-consumer goals involve censorship regimes allowing government seizure of domains, blacklists of sites, or suspended hosting services for legitimate competitors.

NABP supporters have justified their actions by preying on consumer fear of counterfeiters, when their real goals include shutting down sites providing cheaper legitimate drugs. Pfizer joined the assault on the Net in 2011, testifying to Congress that: "The major threat to patients in the U.S., however, is the Internet..." ...

NABP's supporters define "fake pharmacies" as those not registered with VIPPS, rather than only those selling actual counterfeit goods.

The Demand Progress comment also points out how the big pharmaceutical companies supported SOPA and PIPA, since they knew that it, too, would be useful to use as a sledgehammer against foreign online pharmacies that sold legitimate drugs back into the US.

Filed Under: .pharmacy, big pharma, canada, drugs, grey market, parallel imports, reimportation, tlds, top level domains
Companies: icann, nabp

ICANN's New Trademark 'Clearinghouse' Resembles Mobsters' 'Insurance' Program

from the nice-trademark-you've-got-here,-wouldn't-want-anything-to-happen-to-it dept

We've pointed out for years that ICANN's new "top level domains" programs often feel much more like a way to shake down trademark holders who feel the need to buy each and every new domain with their trademarked names, just to prevent anyone else from getting them. Now, ICANN has taken this a step further, streamlining the process by launching a "trademark clearinghouse" in which companies can register a trademark and get early access to "buy" all of the new top level domains with their mark before they reach the open market. Of course, "supporters" are pushing companies to join... and the pitch really does sound like your typical mob shakedown:

The clearinghouse "doesn't necessarily prevent trademark infringement or cybersquatting, but it does help trademark owners and brand owners somewhat in mitigating the damage that might occur," he added. "We've been telling brand owners it's not that expensive to protect themselves and they ought to do it."

I mean, paying the local mob boss "doesn't necessarily prevent anyone from breaking your windows, but it does help in mitigating the likelihood that damage might occur." And "it's not that expensive to protect yourself, so you ought to do it."

Filed Under: domain names, protection, tlds, trademark
Companies: icann

Should Google, Amazon And Others Be Able To Lock Up New Generic Top Level Domains For Their Own Use?

from the wasn't-quite-the-idea... dept

For many years, we've noted that the entire setup of ICANN rolling out new top level domains (TLDs) was a complete joke, often driven by ICANN members who were in positions to be the registrars and registers for those new domains. Thus, all they seemed to do was create money out of thin air for those companies, since there was no actual demand for the TLDs, but companies felt obligated to buy them up anyway, to "keep them out of the hands" of critics, scammers or others. And, certainly a big fear when ICANN decided to offer up its big "generic TLD" setup, whereby anyone could make a play for any new TLD, was that the whole thing was a boondoggle for domain registers and registrars with which to set up a whole bunch of new tollbooths.

However, a funny thing happened along the way. While there certainly were a bunch of those kinds of TLDs applied for (many with competing claims fighting for the right to cash in), what became more interesting was the fact that the list of applications was absolutely dominated by Google and Amazon seeking to gain control over a very long list of TLDs. In fact, we noted that in many cases, Google and Amazon were lined up head to head competing over who would gain control over those TLDs. For example, they're competing with each other (and with some others) for the rights to .book, .shop, .store, .free, .game, .search, .play, .movie, .show, .mail, .map, .spot, .talk, .wow, .you and .cloud. And both of those companies are going for a bunch of others where they're not competing with each other. Google, for example, wants (among other things) .car, .dad, .mom, .dog, .family, .fyi, .plus, .tour, .prod, .here, .prof, .phd, meme., .lol, .day, .love and more.

As you look down the list, you begin to realize that while the initial fear of registers and registrars shaking down everyone to buy new domain names to "protect" their trademarks was a legitimate concern, there was a second serious concern as well: that a bunch of these new gTLDs were not being applied for to set up a registry where anyone could obtain those kinds of domains, but rather to lock them up for one company's use. And while Amazon and Google are the most prominent players here, lots of other companies jumped in as well. Hasbro wants .transformers. Johnson and Johnson wants .baby (so do a bunch of others). Ralph Lauren wants .polo. Travelers Insurance wants the completely ridiculous .redumbrella, while Nationwide Insurance wants .onyourside. Monster Cable (of course) wants .monster.

While some of those more specific ones wouldn't have any demand for anyone else to register anyway, there is a growing concern that companies might lock up certain TLDs, rather than make them available for registering. I'm sure lots of car companies would like theirname.car. But would that be possible?

Apparently, ICANN -- whose boss has already admitted that they're in way over their heads on these new gTLDs -- is now considering whether or not such a use of a gTLD should even be allowed.

But companies such as Amazon, Google, Goodyear, L'Oreal and others also applied for a wide array of words and indicated that they would like to operate the registry as "closed" -- meaning they may not allow other firms to buy what are known as second-level domains.

Clearly, companies want to own and control generic words as domains so that they can offer their services. But with that comes the possibility of blocking competitors who want to attach their brand to a term. For example, Ford might want to buy ford.truck but be blocked from doing so by the owner of .truck.

The article quotes someone from a hosting firm who notes that "It is inherently in the public interest to allow access to ... new [generic top-level domains] to the whole of the Internet Community, e.g., .BLOG, .MUSIC, .CLOUD."

Of course, there is the flipside to this argument as well -- such TLDs that are simply locked up for a single company or service are also not on the market, meaning that they're not another in the long list of domains companies feel they "need to buy" purely for defensive reasons. Either way, at least one (still unnamed) applicant who is competing with a bunch of these companies for a few of the new gTLDs is hiring people to lobby Congress and the EU Parliament not to allow firms to lock up any new gTLD.

In the end, I think our original conclusion still stands: the whole gTLD process appears to be a continuing boondoggle for certain companies, whether it's to lock up certain TLDs or to sell off domains to people and companies who don't really want them, but feel compelled to pay up anyway.

Filed Under: icann, resale, single use, top level domains
Companies: amazon, google, icann